Dennis C Sgroi1, Ivana Sestak2, Jack Cuzick2, Yi Zhang3, Catherine A Schnabel3, Brock Schroeder3, Mark G Erlander3, Anita Dunbier4, Kally Sidhu5, Elena Lopez-Knowles5, Paul E Goss6, Mitch Dowsett7. 1. Molecular Pathology Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Boston, MA, USA; Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: dsgroi@partners.org. 2. Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University, London, UK. 3. bioTheranostics, San Diego, CA, USA. 4. Breakthrough Breast Cancer Centre, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK; Department of Biochemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 5. Breakthrough Breast Cancer Centre, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. 6. Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, Boston, MA, USA. 7. Breakthrough Breast Cancer Centre, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK; Institute of Cancer Research and Academic Department of Biochemistry, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biomarkers to improve the risk-benefit of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy for late recurrence in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer would be clinically valuable. We compared the prognostic ability of the breast-cancer index (BCI) assay, 21-gene recurrence score (Oncotype DX), and an immunohistochemical prognostic model (IHC4) for both early and late recurrence in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive, node-negative (N0) disease who took part in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) clinical trial. METHODS: In this prospective comparison study, we obtained archival tumour blocks from the TransATAC tissue bank from all postmenopausal patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer from whom the 21-gene recurrence score and IHC4 values had already been derived. We did BCI analysis in matched samples with sufficient residual RNA using two BCI models-cubic (BCI-C) and linear (BCI-L)-using previously validated cutoffs. We assessed prognostic ability of BCI for distant recurrence over 10 years (the primary endpoint) and compared it with that of the 21-gene recurrence score and IHC4. We also tested the ability of the assays to predict early (0-5 years) and late (5-10 years) distant recurrence. To assess the ability of the biomarkers to predict recurrence beyond standard clinicopathological variables, we calculated the change in the likelihood-ratio χ(2) (LR-Δχ(2)) from Cox proportional hazards models. FINDINGS: Suitable tissue was available from 665 patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive, N0 breast cancer for BCI analysis. The primary analysis showed significant differences in risk of distant recurrence over 10 years in the categorical BCI-C risk groups (p<0·0001) with 6·8% (95% CI 4·4-10·0) of patients in the low-risk group, 17·3% (12·0-24·7) in the intermediate group, and 22·2% (15·3-31·5) in the high-risk group having distant recurrence. The secondary analysis showed that BCI-L was a much stronger predictor for overall (0-10 year) distant recurrence compared with BCI-C (interquartile HR 2·30 [95% CI 1·62-3·27]; LR-Δχ(2)=22·69; p<0·0001). When compared with BCI-L, the 21-gene recurrence score was less predictive (HR 1·48 [95% CI 1·22-1·78]; LR-Δχ(2)=13·68; p=0·0002) and IHC4 was similar (HR 1·69 [95% CI 1·51-2·56]; LR-Δχ(2)=22·83; p<0·0001). All further analyses were done with the BCI-L model. In a multivariable analysis, all assays had significant prognostic ability for early distant recurrence (BCI-L HR 2·77 [95% CI 1·63-4·70], LR-Δχ(2)=15·42, p<0·0001; 21-gene recurrence score HR 1·80 [1·42-2·29], LR-Δχ(2)=18·48, p<0·0001; IHC4 HR 2·90 [2·01-4·18], LR-Δχ(2)=29·14, p<0·0001); however, only BCI-L was significant for late distant recurrence (BCI-L HR 1·95 [95% CI 1·22-3·14], LR-Δχ(2)=7·97, p=0·0048; 21-gene recurrence score HR 1·13 [0·82-1·56], LR-Δχ(2)=0·48, p=0·47; IHC4 HR 1·30 [0·88-1·94], LR-Δχ(2)=1·59, p=0·20). INTERPRETATION: BCI-L was the only significant prognostic test for risk of both early and late distant recurrence and identified two risk populations for each timeframe. It could help to identify patients at high risk for late distant recurrence who might benefit from extended endocrine or other therapy. FUNDING: Avon Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Breast Cancer Foundation, US Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Breakthrough Breast Cancer through the Mary-Jean Mitchell Green Foundation, AstraZeneca, Cancer Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden (London, UK).
BACKGROUND: Biomarkers to improve the risk-benefit of extended adjuvant endocrine therapy for late recurrence in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer would be clinically valuable. We compared the prognostic ability of the breast-cancer index (BCI) assay, 21-gene recurrence score (Oncotype DX), and an immunohistochemical prognostic model (IHC4) for both early and late recurrence in patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive, node-negative (N0) disease who took part in the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) clinical trial. METHODS: In this prospective comparison study, we obtained archival tumour blocks from the TransATAC tissue bank from all postmenopausal patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer from whom the 21-gene recurrence score and IHC4 values had already been derived. We did BCI analysis in matched samples with sufficient residual RNA using two BCI models-cubic (BCI-C) and linear (BCI-L)-using previously validated cutoffs. We assessed prognostic ability of BCI for distant recurrence over 10 years (the primary endpoint) and compared it with that of the 21-gene recurrence score and IHC4. We also tested the ability of the assays to predict early (0-5 years) and late (5-10 years) distant recurrence. To assess the ability of the biomarkers to predict recurrence beyond standard clinicopathological variables, we calculated the change in the likelihood-ratio χ(2) (LR-Δχ(2)) from Cox proportional hazards models. FINDINGS: Suitable tissue was available from 665 patients with oestrogen-receptor-positive, N0 breast cancer for BCI analysis. The primary analysis showed significant differences in risk of distant recurrence over 10 years in the categorical BCI-C risk groups (p<0·0001) with 6·8% (95% CI 4·4-10·0) of patients in the low-risk group, 17·3% (12·0-24·7) in the intermediate group, and 22·2% (15·3-31·5) in the high-risk group having distant recurrence. The secondary analysis showed that BCI-L was a much stronger predictor for overall (0-10 year) distant recurrence compared with BCI-C (interquartile HR 2·30 [95% CI 1·62-3·27]; LR-Δχ(2)=22·69; p<0·0001). When compared with BCI-L, the 21-gene recurrence score was less predictive (HR 1·48 [95% CI 1·22-1·78]; LR-Δχ(2)=13·68; p=0·0002) and IHC4 was similar (HR 1·69 [95% CI 1·51-2·56]; LR-Δχ(2)=22·83; p<0·0001). All further analyses were done with the BCI-L model. In a multivariable analysis, all assays had significant prognostic ability for early distant recurrence (BCI-L HR 2·77 [95% CI 1·63-4·70], LR-Δχ(2)=15·42, p<0·0001; 21-gene recurrence score HR 1·80 [1·42-2·29], LR-Δχ(2)=18·48, p<0·0001; IHC4 HR 2·90 [2·01-4·18], LR-Δχ(2)=29·14, p<0·0001); however, only BCI-L was significant for late distant recurrence (BCI-L HR 1·95 [95% CI 1·22-3·14], LR-Δχ(2)=7·97, p=0·0048; 21-gene recurrence score HR 1·13 [0·82-1·56], LR-Δχ(2)=0·48, p=0·47; IHC4 HR 1·30 [0·88-1·94], LR-Δχ(2)=1·59, p=0·20). INTERPRETATION: BCI-L was the only significant prognostic test for risk of both early and late distant recurrence and identified two risk populations for each timeframe. It could help to identify patients at high risk for late distant recurrence who might benefit from extended endocrine or other therapy. FUNDING: Avon Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Breast Cancer Foundation, US Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program, Susan G Komen for the Cure, Breakthrough Breast Cancer through the Mary-Jean Mitchell Green Foundation, AstraZeneca, Cancer Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden (London, UK).
Authors: Christine Desmedt; Fanny Piette; Sherene Loi; Yixin Wang; Françoise Lallemand; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Giuseppe Viale; Mauro Delorenzi; Yi Zhang; Mahasti Saghatchian d'Assignies; Jonas Bergh; Rosette Lidereau; Paul Ellis; Adrian L Harris; Jan G M Klijn; John A Foekens; Fatima Cardoso; Martine J Piccart; Marc Buyse; Christos Sotiriou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Daniel S Oh; Melissa A Troester; Jerry Usary; Zhiyuan Hu; Xiaping He; Cheng Fan; Junyuan Wu; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-02-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Xiao-Jun Ma; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Wilson Wang; Li Ding; Dennis C Sgroi; Richard A Bender; C Kent Osborne; D Craig Allred; Mark G Erlander Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Catherine M Kelly; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Giampaolo Bianchini; Jennifer K Litton; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kathy S Albain; William E Barlow; Steven Shak; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Robert B Livingston; I-Tien Yeh; Peter Ravdin; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Nancy E Davidson; George W Sledge; Eric P Winer; Clifford Hudis; James N Ingle; Edith A Perez; Kathleen I Pritchard; Lois Shepherd; Julie R Gralow; Carl Yoshizawa; D Craig Allred; C Kent Osborne; Daniel F Hayes Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Xiao-Jun Ma; Zuncai Wang; Paula D Ryan; Steven J Isakoff; Anne Barmettler; Andrew Fuller; Beth Muir; Gayatry Mohapatra; Ranelle Salunga; J Todd Tuggle; Yen Tran; Diem Tran; Ana Tassin; Paul Amon; Wilson Wang; Wei Wang; Edward Enright; Kimberly Stecker; Eden Estepa-Sabal; Barbara Smith; Jerry Younger; Ulysses Balis; James Michaelson; Atul Bhan; Karleen Habin; Thomas M Baer; Joan Brugge; Daniel A Haber; Mark G Erlander; Dennis C Sgroi Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Laura J van't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Augustinus A M Hart; Dorien W Voskuil; George J Schreiber; Johannes L Peterse; Chris Roberts; Matthew J Marton; Mark Parrish; Douwe Atsma; Anke Witteveen; Annuska Glas; Leonie Delahaye; Tony van der Velde; Harry Bartelink; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Emiel T Rutgers; Stephen H Friend; René Bernards Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-12-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Jack Cuzick; Christopher Wale; John Forbes; Elizabeth A Mallon; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Anita Dunbier; Michael Baum; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Roberto Bugarini; Frederick L Baehner; Steven Shak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P-L Jerevall; X-J Ma; H Li; R Salunga; N C Kesty; M G Erlander; D C Sgroi; B Holmlund; L Skoog; T Fornander; B Nordenskjöld; O Stål Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Eleftherios P Mamounas; Hanna Bandos; Barry C Lembersky; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Charles E Geyer; Priya Rastogi; Louis Fehrenbacher; Mark L Graham; Stephen K Chia; Adam M Brufsky; Janice M Walshe; Gamini S Soori; Shaker R Dakhil; Thomas E Seay; James L Wade; Edward C McCarron; Soonmyung Paik; Sandra M Swain; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-11-30 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Gustav Stålhammar; Nelson Fuentes Martinez; Michael Lippert; Nicholas P Tobin; Ida Mølholm; Lorand Kis; Gustaf Rosin; Mattias Rantalainen; Lars Pedersen; Jonas Bergh; Michael Grunkin; Johan Hartman Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Young Chandler; Clyde B Schechter; Jinani Jayasekera; Aimee Near; Suzanne C O'Neill; Claudine Isaacs; Charles E Phelps; G Thomas Ray; Tracy A Lieu; Scott Ramsey; Jeanne S Mandelblatt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 44.544